One idea is to make the role of politician a $0 income. Then give all of the constituents an equally weighted vote on the salary.
This might serve two purposes:
- The people who would apply for the position would be the people who have a desire to improve society.
- If the politician chooses incorrectly, they would soon try to correct their decision or leave the position.
Interesting idea, @gikitiki! Thank you.
However, I have several questions. What does it mean to improve society. How we will understand that politician is improving society? We must clearly know what it means to improve society. Only then will we be able to detect that someone is improving or degrading the society. Right?
And the second point. If the person is motivated only by money, then he is not able to improve the society. All great persons were not motivated by money. And the leader of the society must be a great person to really make society prosperous.
Those are all good questions. But I don't have answers to them. :-(
"Improving Society" is relative to each region. I guess it would be relative to the society itself. A bad example is watching a show similar to "Survivor" or "Big Brother". the competitors definition of improving society would be extremely different from the societal norms on Wall St.
If a group in California,USA defined societal norms and a group in Rome, Italy defined societal norms, would they be different? There is no correct answer.
I agree with your point
What I was trying to steer away from was the idea that if you were to take a given political role, you will have a guaranteed salary. If the salary can somehow be controlled by the satisfaction of the constituents, that "might" improve things.